WENRICH: SPERMATOGENESIS OF PHRYNOTETTIX MAGNUS. 101 
would be unnecessary. Robertson says he believes that the unequal 
tetrad in Tettigidea parvipennis has arisen by a loss at the distal end. 
And he finds in other individuals an homologous pair each member 
of which is equivalent to the larger member of the unequal pair. 
This is just the condition that is presented by B in my material. And, 
furthermore, by analysis of the pachytene and postspireme stages, I 
am able to say just what part has been lost. 
Another striking analogy between my observations and those of 
Robertson occurs in connection with the larger unequal pair that he 
has found in Acridiwm granulatus. He finds in some individuals a 
small equal pair and in two individuals an homologous unequal pair, 
the smaller component of which corresponds to either of the two 
elements of the equal pair. This, again, is precisely the relationship 
between types C; and C2 in Phrynotettix. Here, too, we both failed 
to find the other possible combination, namely, that of a pair of the 
larger conjugants. These striking similarities lead me to think that 
the elements described by Robertson may be explained in the same 
way that I have explained them in Phrynotettix. If such be the 
case, then the various assumptions as to doubling and “sesquiva- 
lent”? chromosomes will be unnecessary. I believe, further, that 
without a doubt the unequal tetrads described by Robertson do 
divide reductionally in the first maturation division, but that the 
spindle-fiber attaches at the distal and not at the proximal end; and, 
furthermore, that there is a very good chance that the other chromo- 
somes may behave as does chromosome-pair A in Phrynotettix, and 
therefore divide equationally, as it does. 
Of recent works on HemipreRA, the most interesting from the stand- 
point of synapsis are the papers by Montgomery, Wilson, and Korn- 
hauser. Montgomery (’11) advocated telosynapsis for many years, 
but in this late paper, in which he described the spermatogenesis of 
Euschistus, he concludes that pairing is by a process of parasynapsis. 
I believe it to be a highly significant fact that Montgomery, at the 
end of his very active career as a cytologist, and with his wide ex- 
perience back of him, should reverse his former position on the subject 
of synapsis and should find parasynapsis in this insect, which he had 
studied and reported on at an earlier date (01). He says (p. 743): 
“Tn the growth period through the pachytene stage there is no longi- 
tudinal splitting, for what I had previously (’01) interpreted as such, 
I now find to be the line of conjugation. ... Frequently at certain 
points along a geminus the chromatin granules appear accurately 
paired. But this does not appear until a rather advanced stage of the 
